The Speech and the Direction - Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

JohnR · 12-02-2009, 08:50 AM

The Speech and the Direction.

Overall I thought the speech was good if not a little bland. It is good to see a president that can speak the language.

More importantly, the direction the presidents is (finally) seeking is the right course. With the probably exception of the timeline, we may now have what we were hearing back in the elections, a more focused resolve in AFG. Hopefully our "partners" can produce the same.

As a side note, the pres said we took our eye off the ball in AFG with regards to Iraq. That is partially true. We also made the mistake (maybe gamble instead of "mistake"?) of planting responsibility of AFG with our NATO allies in that time frame. Our NATO allies that would coalesce from a bickering gaggle should the Red Army roll through the Fulda Gap are bit more gaggle and a lot less coalesced in AFG.

What say you?

Swimmer · 12-02-2009, 09:25 AM

Sounded like Bush.

buckman · 12-02-2009, 09:56 AM

And he didn't blame Bush in every other sentence. How Presidential of him. Maybe there's hope at the end of the rainbow after all. Pass the koolaid please

Joe · 12-02-2009, 10:57 AM

They should be able to weaken the Taliban to the point where if we pull out, they are unable to move to take over the entire country again. Weakened opposition will increase the likelihood of a stable central government able to support a military stronger than the Taliban. It's obvious there is an inverse relationship with respect to a stable Afghan state and the strength of the Taliban.
That said, I think time line is complete b.s. - but no president is going stand up and say it's going to be years and years. Overall, I'd say it's the best choice in a minefield of bad choices available.

striperman36 · 12-02-2009, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe

They should be able to weaken the Taliban to the point where if we pull out, they are unable to move to take over the entire country again. Weakened opposition will increase the likelihood of a stable central government able to support a military stronger than the Taliban. It's obvious there is an inverse relationship with respect to a stable Afghan state and the strength of the Taliban.
That said, I think time line is complete b.s. - but no president is going stand up and say it's going to be years and years. Overall, I'd say it's the best choice in a minefield of bad choices available.

AFG has never had a strong central government, it's like a feudal society bunch of warlords

Joe · 12-02-2009, 11:03 AM

I know - they are tribal, they don't have a national identity. They don't need a strong central government, just one stronger than the opposition.

striperman36 · 12-02-2009, 11:08 AM

But one that has impact across the country not just in the capital.

RIROCKHOUND · 12-02-2009, 11:15 AM

I thought it was good, but was there a CO leak in the room, all the cadets looked bored during the speech, and CBS cut away from a few almost nodding off...

I thought it was a good speech, I agree the time line is a joke, but I like the point that we will chase Al Qudea wherever, that should be the Somalia, etc...

Some spin in the beginning about no scheduled addition of troops was withheld, because obviously he could add any whenever he needed to.

PaulS · 12-02-2009, 12:06 PM

Agree that the timeline is ridiculous but it allows for an out to say that they are showing progress and we should stay a while longer. Hopefully, focusing will allow us to get the job done and train their army so its somewhat functional and we can get out relatively quick.

justplugit · 12-02-2009, 12:21 PM

Sounded like he was trying to please everybody, not a Commander in Chief wanting to lead a country to a victory.
Didn't give me a feeling of assurance, and obviously he didn't motivate the Cadets.

Tough situation for sure, but either your in it to win it or get out.
I'm sure AL queda and the Taliban were glad to hear we would be
drawing down in 18 months.
Unless we get our economy and unemployment under control there
won't be enough money to bring home any troops.

RIJIMMY · 12-02-2009, 01:03 PM

another example of a lack of knowledge of world history.
The "taliban" is just the latest incarnation of the tribal warfare in the regions. These people are not fighting a 2,3,4 year war, they are fighting a 2000 yr war, and have no expectations of peace in their lifetime.

RIROCKHOUND · 12-02-2009, 01:08 PM

Jim, you are right.
We should be pursuing those that want to harm us, or did with 9/11, not try and restore peace in AFG. not likely in our lifetimes there!

justplugit · 12-02-2009, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

These people are not fighting a 2,3,4 year war, they are fighting a 2000 yr war, and have no expectations of peace in their lifetime.

Exactly, these people are in no hurry and can lay back as long as they want in
fighting or carrying out terrorist attacks.
Case in point, 8 years between the bombing of the WTC and the 9/11 attack.

While i didn't agree with a lot of the Bush Presidency, he hit the nail on the head
when he said this would be a new and different kind of war fighting terror,
needing new strategies and hi-tech methods. We are their mortal enemies and they will never stop trying to kill us.

They have time on their side and know we are an impatient and instant result people.

PaulS · 12-02-2009, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

another example of a lack of knowledge of world history.
The "taliban" is just the latest incarnation of the tribal warfare in the regions. These people are not fighting a 2,3,4 year war, they are fighting a 2000 yr war, and have no expectations of peace in their lifetime.

I wasn't paying attention to the whole speach but didn't he say that part of the reason for the timeline was to get the AFG army up to a competent level?

buckman · 12-02-2009, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulS

I wasn't paying attention to the whole speach but didn't he say that part of the reason for the timeline was to get the AFG army up to a competent level?

I think thats the idea. A soft deadline to give them a little motivation. Makes sense.

RIJIMMY · 12-02-2009, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulS

I wasn't paying attention to the whole speach but didn't he say that part of the reason for the timeline was to get the AFG army up to a competent level?

Think 1920-30s Chicago with a police force full of Gambinis,Capones and other mobsters. Who is their allegiance too?

I dont know the solution and I hate to beat a dead horse, but we dont have much of a "change" here. Its another war in another country with people who did not attack us. yes the taliban are linked to al queda, but they werent the ones who pulled 9/11 off. You're dealing with people with a middle ages mentatlity and I dont think our soliders are the solution. massive bombing/nukes may be, but not soliders.

Fly Rod · 12-03-2009, 08:17 AM

I will just hang out here to see who is right or wrong about the pull out of all American troops by Sept. of 2011.

Read my print! It won't happen!!

JohnnyD · 12-03-2009, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

I will just hang out here to see who is right or wrong about the pull out of all American troops by Sept. of 2011.

Read my print! It won't happen!!

While I agree that the time-table isn't going to happen, where is there mention of all American troops out of Afghanistan by Sept. 2011?

I didn't watch the speech, but everything I've read has said a "draw-down of US troops starting in July, depending on the security situation." There is that convenient qualifier "depending on" that will help Obama talk his way out if this doesn't happen. But I haven't seen all troops out by Sept 2011.

buckman · 12-03-2009, 11:26 AM

I hope he isn't picking 9/11 as the date. Maybe another flyover with Air Force 1 to celebrate.

Swimmer · 12-03-2009, 12:10 PM

What no one has mentioned and should is the heroin/poppy fields that we see our troops trudging through on patrol. We are saving this chithole country so it can export more death in the back door of America. Doesn't anyone have a problem with that? How much file footage do you need to see of our guys/gal walking through poppy fields before you start scratching your heads. They should be burning them or something. Maybe spraying something on the plants. At least when we are fighting one of those "oil" wars it doesn't seem so absurd.

JohnnyD · 12-03-2009, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swimmer

What no one has mentioned and should is the heroin/poppy fields that we see our troops trudging through on patrol. We are saving this chithole country so it can export more death in the back door of America. Doesn't anyone have a problem with that? How much file footage do you need to see of our guys/gal walking through poppy fields before you start scratching your heads. They should be burning them or something. Maybe spraying something on the plants. At least when we are fighting one of those "oil" wars it doesn't seem so absurd.

I agree. The Taliban, when in power, made the cultivation of opium poppies a capital punishment offense in some instances. Now, they are using it as a cash crop.

I thought I had seen an article once that the Taliban had decreased opium production in Afghanistan by something like 90%.